Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 18
Application No. 08/395,719
4. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Torras in view of Westgate.
The teachings of Torras and Westgate have been previously
set forth. Thus, after the scope and content of the prior art
are determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Torras and dependent
claims 4 and 6, it is our opinion that the only differences are
the limitations that a perforated cap is fitted over the tubular
mouth member under the cover (claim 4) and the cylinder is formed
of a transparent material (claim 6).
With regard to claim 4, it is our opinion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the appellant's invention to modify Torras' food container to
contain a condiment and to provide the container with a
perforated cap fitted over the neck 15 (i.e., the tubular mouth
member) under the screw cap (i.e., cover) as suggested by
Westgate's condiment container having a fitment 15 with sifting
holes 20.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007